August 07, 2006

8/7: Bloggers 2, MSM 0

From the same blogger who brought you Rathergate (littlegreenfootballs) comes word that a Reuters photograph of Beirut had been altered to make damage to the city look worse than it really was. The right side of the 'sphere is busy connecting dots, already noting that the same Reuters photographer was also the first MSMer at the Qana tragedy. The Blogometer will feature a more thorough write-up in the PM because there is still plenty going on in CT SEN and leading Dems are using the I-word again.

On 8/6 Little Green Footballs reported: "This Reuters photograph shows blatant evidence of manipulation. Notice the repeating patterns in the smoke; this is almost certainly caused by using the Photoshop 'clone' tool to add more smoke to the image. (Hat tip: Mike.) It's so incredibly obvious, it reminds me of the faked CBS memos. ... The photographer who took this picture (probably also the person who doctored it), Adnan Hajj, is rather well-known to LGF readers. In fact, rather well-known to the entire world. He also took this infamous photograph from Qana of the guy in the green helmet, parading a dead body around for pictures, featured on the front pages of newspapers worldwide."

LGF updated the original post throughout the weekend including linking to a discussion of the photo on the Professional sports photographers message board SportsShooter

Other righties jumped on the story, including, Scott Johnson at Power Line who described the manipulation this way: "contrast in the photo was heightened to make it more dramatic. The smoke was darkened and expanded through cloning, so that it appeared (to me at least) that there were two sources of fire rather than one. Buildings in the lower left were cloned, to make it appear, I assume, that the area of the fire was more heavily populated. There may be other changes that those better versed in photography can identify." In another post, Johnson thinks this "should be a severe embarrassment to Reuters. The photographer whose photo was doctored is the same person who shot some of the famous propaganda images from Qana, which can only add to the doubts about happened there.

Even progressives were picking up on the story. Huffington Post's Taylor Marsh writes this is the "type of fakery like we need John Bolton at the United Nations. But that's not the worst news today. As if we needed more corporate media disrespect, we've now got Reuters' propaganda. They've now admitted to actually doctoring a picture to show more smoke and disaster in Lebanon than was happening in a certain snapshot. It's bad enough in Beirut, so we surely don't need to push this envelope, not to mention heighten mistrust of the media. There are not that many corporate outlets willing to risk their people in war zones as it is."

Following up on the House Dem Judiciary Cmte's "Constitution in Crisis" report TPM Muckraker's Justin Rood asked Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), "If the Democrats take back the House, would this lead to impeachment?" Conyers responded: "There's no way I can predict whether there will ultimately be an impeachment proceeding underway or not," Conyers replied. But with three months to go until the midterm elections, "to be putting together a list, an agenda for the Judiciary Committee. . . smacks me as being a little. . ." TPMMuck reports, "he didn't finish the sentence."

Michael Crowley at TNR writes: "Hmmm... Doesn't sound to me like Conyers got Nancy Pelosi's 'off the table' memo!" and under the header "What November Means in the House" National Review Online's Kathryn Jean Lopez comments: "If the Dems take the House, John Conyers has the impeachment plan ready to roll."

Neal Fink at My Left Nutmeg described 8/7's Quinnipiac poll showing Sen. Joe Lieberman (D) down 51 - 45% to cable exec Ned Lamont "sobering." For some progressive bloggers, though, the results only affirmed what they had been saying all weekend. Tim Tagaris at the officialNed Lamont Blog on 8/4: "I'll be honest, there seems to be a lot of premature celebration right now for a race that's a whole hell of a lot closer than ... the 13 point lead Quinnipiac gave us yesterday. I can tell you one thing, our numbers don't show us up 13 - and that is no spin."

Chris Bowers at MyDD also was out controlling expectations: "I have looked at some numbers this morning, and I now think that this is going to be a very close election. Right now, in my opinion, Lamont is more likely to lose the primary than he is to win it by the ... double-digit threshold necessary to knock out Lieberman once and for all." Later Bowers reaffirmed his analysis: "In my gut, I still do not expect Lamont to blow Lieberman out."

With Lieberman's numbers slightly rebounding, progressive bloggers fought back against the notion that a only a Lamont blow out could force Lieberman out of an independent run. Natural Born Killers producer and the blogger Lamont has never ever heard even heard ofJane Hamsher at firedoglake commented on Sen. Frank Lautenberg's (D-NJ) suggestion that a big primary loss should force Lieberman to look at reality: "Kill this now. It's an attempt to set the limits of Joe's indy run. Most polls show the race much tighter than ten points, and it's a way to inject the notion that if Lieberman loses by less than that he's entitled to cut and run. ... No. If Lieberman loses he should bow out gracefully and back the winner of the race, Ned Lamont. Anything less is nothing but a commitment to his own self-aggrandizement at the expense of the party. Staying in the race threatens three Connecticut House seats. His kiss-my-ring vanity party is an exercise in narcissism and self-indulgence that cannot and should not be tolerated."

Even the lone pro-Lieberman voice in the lefty blogosphere, LieberDem, hopes Lieberman will pack it in if he loses 8/8: "It has become painfully clear to me that little good (and plenty bad) will come out of this race for Democrats, regardless of whether Lamont or Lieberman is the last man standing. That's why I wanted to get it over with as quickly as possible. Until today, the only way to make sure this intraparty slugfest ended August 8 was for Lieberman to win the primary. But today, Frank Lautenberg hinted that there might be an alternative -- he said Joe Lieberman might forgo his independent bid if Ned Lamont wins the primary by a double-digit margin. ... I don't much care anymore whether Lamont or Lieberman wins this Senate seat. The only outcome that gives me pause at this point is Lamont winning by a narrow enough margin that Lieberman decides stays in the race. The two ways to end this race on Tuesday are through a Lieberman victory or a Lamont rout. I could live with either option, but if you asked me now, I'd probably tell you that I would prefer the latter."

Following up on an 8/3 heckling of Lamont in progressive bloggers tracked down the name of Lamont in Meridan, CT, progressive bloggers tracked down the heckler's name, Richard Goodstein, and began searching his background. Aldon at MyDD found pictures of Goodstein at flickr and identified him as a "Washington lobbyist" that "contributed to Lieberman's campaign in 2004, Kerry's campaign and to Hillary's PAC." Matt Stoller at MyDD wondered: "Is this the same Richard Goodstein who gave Lieberman $1500 for his 2004 Presidential run? Because that Goodstein is a lobbyist in DC for the chemical and health supplies industry."

Greg Sargent at TPM Cafe then contacted Goldtsein's office in DC, obtained his cell phone number, and called him: "When I asked him if he was a Lieberman supporter and was the man in the pic on the front of the Herald-Record, he confirmed that, yes, he was a Lieberman backer and that he was the same man as pictured on the paper's front page. Then the conversation went south." TPM Muckraker then dug some dirt: "It turns out, this recent flap isn't the first time Goodstein's been in hot water. Way back in 1983, Goodstein -- then a lawyer for the doomed Mondale for President campaign -- "surreptitiously took" a notebook from a Philadelphia office in order to hide the nature of the campaign's scheme to use rather flimsy outside organizations to evade fundraising laws."

Christy Hardin Smith at firedoglake thought the whole event encapsulated why Lieberman had to go: "The DC beltway has become so intertwined with politicians, politicians' wives who double as campaign staffers or lobbyists or other levels of influence (just look no further than the Wives' Club from the Abramoff investigation), to political staffers rotating in and out of KStreet, to the lobbying firms who drive campaign donations in exchange for favors, to the Beltway media who see all of this going on but only a few of them bother to give it coverage, perhaps because it has become such a "normal" part of Washington life that they don't even see it any longer. It's time to clean up the mess - one politician at a time. Electing Ned Lamont is an awfully good start."

Greg Sargent at TPM Cafe has the text of Lieberman's latest 60-second radio ad:

"In the 1960s, as a college student, Joe Lieberman fought for equality and marched with our civil rights leaders in the South," a narrator says. "Ned Lamont says he will stand up for all the people of Connecticut, but did you know that for 16 years, Ned belonged to Round Hill, an exclusive country club not known for its diversity?"..."Ned Lamont only resigned from Round Hill after he decided to run for the Senate because he was afraid it would become a campaign issue. Born into wealth, Ned Lamont is trying to buy a seat in the United States Senate. Membership may have its privileges, but the Senate isn't one of them."

Two items from Dan Balz' 8/6 Washington Postarticle were heavily discussed in the blogosphere. First, lefty bloggers loved Rep. Rahm Emanuel's (D-IL) quote: "What's playing out here is that being a rubber stamp for George Bush is politically dangerous to life-threatening." Reactions included:

• Christy Hardin Smith at firedoglake: "Whether he intended it or not, though, Rahm is correct: being a rubber stamp for George Bush when you are a Senator from Connecticut is asking for trouble."
• Atrios: "If this is Rahm's plan, then Joe might find out that not only will his old friends disappear rather quickly, his primary loss might be the launching pad for the '06 campaign. Stand with Bush, and you lose."
• the official Ned Lamont Blog: "Indeed. And it's dangerous for Republicans as well. That's why you see them flying the president in under-cover for fundraisers, taking the word "Republican" off their website, and falling over themselves on the way to the microphone to criticize the President. Yet one remains steadfast in his un-yielding support for the president, and on Tuesday, we have a shot to replace him with Ned Lamont in the United States Senate."
• Hullabaloo: "It isn't just the war or the unpopular Bush --- it's his Republican majority enablers in the congress. The record is clear and damning. Failing to do their constitutional duty, the GOP Eunuch Caucus has rubber stamped every failed policy he put forward. They are as responsible for this mess as Bush is. The chickens are coming home to roost."

The other heavily commented item was Balz discussion of Iraq/Vietnam political fallout similarities. Mark Schmitt at TPM Cafe did not like the comparison at all: "I'm really tired of the Vietnam/Democrats analogy, in which the entire political history of Vietnam is reduced to McGovern's loss in 1972. The real reason the Vietnam War divided and discredited Democrats and splintered the liberal consensus was because - let's not be afraid to admit it -- Democrats started that war. Opposition to the war didn't unify or define the party, it divided it. Nixon won the 1968 election because Humphrey was associated with the war, couldn't split with LBJ, and Nixon promised - dishonestly -- to end it. The national security gap for Democrats first appeared in polls in 1967-68, because LBJ was held responsible for the war itself, not because they were associated with antiwar activists."

DailyKos diarist DemFromCT didn't like the comparison either: "Here's a concept for them to chew over. It's not the war, stupid as much as it's this stupid war. This is not 1968 or 1972, even if Bush uses the Nixon playbook to blame his enemies. Republicans are in trouble all over the country, not just CT. They're in trouble for many reasons besides the war, but let's be clear. The Iraq War is not a source of Republican strength any more than Bush is a popular president. And that's the message CT will send the country Tuesday."

Conservative bloggers smelled inconsistency. Tom Bevan at RCP Blog found left blogger distinctions between '06and '68 "rather humorous" and writes: "In other words, Iraq is Vietnam, except when it isn't. We'll know soon enough whether the netroots are the cutting-edge of antiwar activism sweeping the nation or, to paraphrase Marshall Wittmann, just a bunch of "McGovernites with modems." Captain's Quarters makes a similar point after reading Martin Peretz' Wall Street Journalarticle : "Peretz' excellent article shows how the Democratic Left has forgotten lessons of political history and strategy, and appears poised to return their party to national irrelevancy. He drives home the naivete of Ned Lamont in foreign policy, where every crisis appears to Lamont as a failure to provide incentives. ... This time the future looks even more bleak, as the Democrats have few national politicians with the credibility on foreign policy and national security to rescue them from disaster -- and the Left is in the middle of pillorying one of them right now in Connecticut."

Others on the right also saw historical comparisons but couldn't agree on a year. Conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt: "The great news for the center-right is that the left's netroots will be focused on the Lamont campaign for the next three months. The hard left will pour money and energy into Lamont's effort, and the Lamont campaign will have a deeply divisive effect on the national Democratic party, a sort of purist's litmus test for the near and long term. "I was with Lamont in '06" will be up there with Republican declarations of having been with Reagan in '76 and Goldwater in '64. ... The party is moving much farther to the left than either the Goldwater or Reagan candidacies took the GOP."

Pachacutec at firedoglake posts video from the Dixie Chicks 5/26 GMA appearance and writes: "No matter what happens Tuesday, I guarantee you, I won't be ready to make nice. I expect you won't either. Let's get out the vote for Ned, but if things don't go our way, my advice is, be sad for a day or two, and then let's get back to work." Atrios also takes a second to ponder a Lamont loss: "I'd like to think that if Lamont loses something will still have been gained, though I'm not sure I can actually make that case. I do think this campaign has helped to shift CW somewhat on certain issues, but a Lamont loss will probably snap it right back to where it was."

Hullabaloo, meanwhile, questions Lieberman's campaign strategy: "What has struck me the most as I watched this campaign unfold from afar, is just how inept the Lieberman campaign has been on almost all levels. For instance, is it even remotely understandable why, in the final week-end of the campaign, it was Atrios who dug out statements by Lieberman from 2003 in which he quite aggressively challenged Bush on the war? Why in the world didn't the Lieberman campaign have that appearance in an ad running on a loop?"

As does Jane Hamsher at firedoglake: "The odd decision of Joe Lieberman and his incompetent (and soon-to-be- justifiably-unemployed campaign staff) to run against Lowell Weicker, then the blogs, and now me has been a bit of a head scratcher. It's allowed Ned Lamont to run virtually unopposed. His "unfavorables" are outrageously low at this point in the game, and Lieberman's politically tin-eared choice of Ned's money as a key campaign issue probably worked to diffuse the other narrative he was pushing so aggressively: That this is a party purge by angry radical lefty extremists, a story which is near and dear to Joe's heart."

Tons of great CT SEN video circulating. Highlights include

• Lamont and Lieberman on This Week from PoliticsTV
• Newt Gingrich on Fox News calling the netroots an "insurgency" from Think Progress
• CNN coverage of "the Kiss" float from YouTube
• Lanny Davis and Jim Dean on Meet the Press from PoliticsTV
• Cokie Roberts on This Week describing a Lamont victory as a "disaster" for Dems from Media Matters
• The McLuahlgin Group on CT SEN from Connecticut Blog
• Quinnipiac Poll's Douglas Schwartz on Face the State from Connecticut Blog
• Lamont spokesperson Liz Dupont-Diehl and Lieberman campaign manager Seam Smith on Beyond the Headlines from Connecticut Blog

Progressive Jonathan Singer at MyDD believes social issues are just the beginning of Ex-NY mayor Rudy Giuliani's (R) liabilities in GOP primary: "The more Americans take look at Rudy Giuliani the more quickly they will realize that he is not the homeland security hero so many believe he is. To take just one example, it was on Giuliani's advice that President Bush nominated Bernie Kerik -- who has since come under intense scrutiny for possible corruption -- to serve as Secretary of Homeland Security."

National Review Online's John Hood reports MA Gov Mitt Romney (R) is setting agendas not only for other Govs nationwide, but also think tanks in DC: "The National Governors Association's annual meeting began Sunday in Charleston, and it appears that the hot talk of the trade is state initiatives to reform health care. Seeing how much good national publicity Gov. Mitt Romney got for a just-enacted plan in Massachusetts - despite the fact that its merits are debatable - the nation's governors are scrambling to come up with their own versions. ... The Romney model, by the way, is the subject of spirited debate among Washington free-marketeers. Analysts at the Heritage Foundation helped draft and promote it, while the Cato Institute has been highly critical."

Kausfiles isn't happy with the New York Times coverage of CT SEN fallout: "If you're Hillary Clinton, and you fear people might interpret a Lieberman loss in Tuesday's Connecticut Senate primary as trouble for other pro-war Senate Dems, what do you do? Get the credulous New York Times to print your damage-controlling spin on the front page!** Here's the headline:

Clinton Dodges Political Peril for War Vote

"Oh yeah? Says who? Anne Kornblut ... claims that "skillful repositioning and adaptation to changing circumstances have enabled her to avoid political damage." Kornblut then outlines Hillary's attempts to make up for her war vote (by "repositioning" and criticizing the Bush administration) but she offers zero evidence that this in fact has enabled Hillary to avoid political damage -- at least on the national stage on which Hillary aspires to play. Among the anti-war Democrats I know, Hillary has suffered huge political damage. ... Still, it's impressive that her 'advisers' can still make the New York Times jump."

Alec Baldwin at The Huffington Post on An Inconvenient Truth: "Watching Gore, I realized that other emerging candidates for the 2008 election may have ideas on a range of issues that confront us today. But there may be one problem that, in an actual triage sense, must be solved before any other. Just as the patient with multiple fractures but one truly life-threatening injury must be treated promptly and effectively, global warming may be the thing we have to address before we set all of the other broken bones. And for that job there seems, at least for now, only one specialist to call on. Watching Gore, I couldn't help but think how we owe him, and ourselves, another look at the man."

John Zogby at The Huffington Post looks forward to a Lamont victory as an opportunity for Dems to form a coherent position on Iraq:

I have stated on The Huffington Post several times that the Democrats will have a tough time convincing that they are ready to take back control of Congress without offering any clarity on the Iraq War. ... Overall, only 36% of likely voters told us that they agree that the war in Iraq has been "worth the loss of American lives", while 57% disagree. But the partisan splits are more revealing: only 16% of the Democrats polled said the war has been worth while 82% disagree and only 26% of Independents agree the war has been worth it while 72% disagree. On the Republican side, 64% said the war has been worth it, while 23% disagree. The war has been the principal cause of the nation's polarization in the past three years. The polling evidence shows the degree to which Iraq has become a Republican war. And these latest numbers are also noteworthy in that they show that about one in four Republicans have now pretty much given up on the war.

All of which is to suggest that Democratic candidates will now probably be emboldened to take a stronger stance against the war. If principle doesn't win the day, at least the polling numbers are pretty clear what their base wants. Indeed, the polling numbers were pretty clear what Democrats and Independents wanted in 2004 - and the fact that they didn't receive the opposition to the war they were looking for from their standard-bearers is the main reason that they lost both the Presidency and did not pick up seats in either house of Congress.

Meanwhile, look for Ned Lamont, who is running a strong antiwar campaign, to be the new face of the Democrats in 2006 and perhaps beyond. And look for Democratic voters to push harder for even more clarity on where Democrats stand. Lieberman will be gone and Clinton will be distancing herself from her previous stand. But calling an obvious failure a failure will not be enough. The next step in offering voters some clarity on Iraq will be to develop an exit strategy. That is what leadership is all about and Democrats, fresh from sending the pro-war Lieberman a clear message, will be looking very closely.

Details has a barely suitable for a family publication item titled: "Orgasm or Excellent Marinara." The site cycles through a slide show of cropped images of pleased male and female faces. The viewer has mere seconds to guess whether the complete photo is from a cooking show or a porn flick. Enjoy.

Posted by Conn Carroll at August 7, 2006 12:43 PM